-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Democrats are having a heckuva time putting a positive spin on Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts yesterday — and the attempts frequently bridge the line between the plausible and the absurd.
Case in point: a column in the LA Times today by Tim Rutten. He rightly chides the Obama administration for taking on too much in its first year in power, but he goes on to argue that voter anger, typified by the Brown win, is just as much about small-government conservatives as big-government liberals:
[I]f the lessons gleaned from Massachusetts stop with healthcare, something far more profound and potentially disruptive will have been missed. There is a deep and increasingly restive anger stirring in the country. Its focal points at the moment may seem to be healthcare and “big government,” but if there were a Republican in the White House, they might just as well be tax cuts and “limited government.” The fact is that the president and both parties’ congressional delegations have approval ratings under 50%.
I doubt you’ll find many voters resentful at the prospect of more cash in their pockets through a tax cut, or shrinking bureaucracy in the federal government. On the other hand, voters are plenty resentful at the idea of a government takeover and a forced-health insurance plan.
The argument is almost as absurd as one made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer quoted in The Hill yesterday. What voters are really ticked about, Hoyer said, is that Republicans are obstructing the health-care bill. If that were the case, Coakley would be the new junior Senator from Massachusetts. But it’s not, and she’s not.
Why can’t liberals face the political reality that a sizeable percentage of the country — including many independents — despises the ramrod policies of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress? Part of the trouble is their mindset. They still think that 2008 signified a seismic shift in the political ideology of the American people. But polls show the nation still divided along the same conservative, liberal, and moderate divide that’s existed for years — and self-identified conservatives continue to hold the edge.
Barack Obama might be in the Oval Office, but the nation hasn’t changed that much. Democrats continue to govern as if it has. And that’s going to haunt them this year, as it did yesterday in Massachusetts.
View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/20/why-they-cant-explain-the-obam
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ncatty| 1.20.10 @ 4:37PM
Shhhhhh. Don't say anything. We don't want Obama/Pelosi/Reid to catch on now.
Tina| 1.20.10 @ 7:27PM
Don't worry. Obama/Pelosi/Reid, et al., wouldn't catch on if it smacked em upside the head which yesterday it did, hard. You watch. This motley group is going to shift from second to fifth gear on their agenda. The People be damned.
Guy Bee| 1.21.10 @ 9:02AM
The bailing Rats don't care. They are ideologically stuck in their foundation of socialism. The vulnerable ones are those who think they can get reelected. They are the ones we need to attack with RECALL petitions. Reid needs to feel the HEAT!!!!
Teflon93 | 1.20.10 @ 4:39PM
But of course they do know this. That's why they had to call out the SEIU thugs for town halls when not cancelling them altogether. That's why they beg for enormous handouts when they vote for socialist mad dreams. That's why they run away from the "liberal" label altogether, even laughably claiming to be "fiscally conservative" in an attempt to confuse voters.
None of this behavior is explicable if these politicians were truly ignorant of how unpopular this nonsense is.
They're just trying to hold on until they can change the electorate through illegal immigration, systemic voter fraud, and the creation of sufficient quantities of welfare state clients.
JP| 1.20.10 @ 4:41PM
Different blogs offer different spin, but there seems to be a common thread coalescing:
1)The President still enjoys better ratings than either the GOP or the Congress; ergo, it isn't his policies that are in trouble.
2)The President relied too much on Reid and Pelosi and lost control of the process.
3)Voters are just angry, and it isn't necessairily the healthcare system that they are angry at.
Concerning item one: the majority of voters still like the President. But his itemized polling numbers aren't so good. His performance numbers have been going south since June. And his polling numbers on health care are atrocious. There are still millions of unemployed people out there and the President refuses to focus on real job creation and organic GDP growth.
2)Yes, the President outsourced his domestic agenda to Reid and Pelosi; however, at every point in the process Rahm Emmanaul has been there to provide support, bribes, and pressure. This bill is as much Obama's as it is Harry Reid's.
3)Voter anger is deep and varied. You'd expect as much with unemployment at or over 10%, trillion dollar annual defecits, Wall St pay-outs, and huge amounts of cash being paid out to unions, special interests, and banks, etc... When you add the obviously corrupt process that ObamaCare has endured it is a wonder there aren't people out there with pitch forks and tar.
DD| 1.20.10 @ 8:01PM
I would have two things to add to your comments:
1.The polling numbers,when it comes to Obama's approval ratings,just simply LIE.When polled,a large proportion of these people are affraid to say anything negative about a black president,not to be suspected of being "racists".This is a fact!
2.The socialist regimes were nascient from the marxist-base created by and for the labor unions in 18th century.Unionization of labor leads inherently to desire to instaurate socialism by destroing the free,capitalist,society.
ZurichMike| 1.21.10 @ 5:37AM
1. Obama's rating are higher than Congress? That's hardly a benchmark; both ratings are in the toilet, including the spineless reach-across-the-aisle-and-pull-back-a-stump Republicans.
2. Obama never controlled the process. He is a puppet for people glad to have someone they can manipulate to say anything in front of a teleprompter.
3. You're right. They're also angry about the lack of national security, as well as the healthcare rationing plan of Obama. He is a disaster for the country.
4. Obama is liked? In a general sense? Sure, we Americans are forgiving. But where it counts -- no cogent defense plan, terrorism treated like jaywalking offenses, spending other generations' money -- he's a disaster.
delta daav | 1.21.10 @ 8:51AM
The Labor unions of the 18th Century are not the problem of today. In fact, most of th labor unions arising out of the 18th and 19th Century are gone or dying - private sector unions where in the end, the company and union had to get along or the company died and the union members were out of a job.
The labor unions that are the problem today are the ones fostered by President Kennedy - government empolyee unions. They have no partnership with the govenment, and don't neet to. Most are like a leach sucking the vitality out of the bureaucracy and sucking up the govenment's financial resources.
Oldefarte| 1.20.10 @ 4:48PM
Liberals only seek to destroy for their own selfish purposes!!!!
Warrior | 1.20.10 @ 5:48PM
When you purchase a copy of the LA Times, do you also get two crayons free?
S.L. Toddard| 1.20.10 @ 5:55PM
Where is this alleged confusion? It's plain what's happened - people in MA are generally upset with the status quo, Coakley represents the party in power and Scott Brown ran as an outsider - the candidate of "change" (sound familiar?). On top of that, liberals - after having been betrayed by Obama all year - are not exactly energized in MA. With the huge majority they have, liberals expected the Obama administration to enact "progressive" legislation and course-correct for the Bush years - they wanted the Iraq war over and done with, they wanted single-payer health-care system, they wanted Bush and Cheney et al tried for their war crimes, they wanted the banks nationalized and they wanted authoritarian Bush/Cheney policies like military kangaroo courts, indefinite detention and domestic spying discontinued. Most of all Obama pledged to change the way Washington worked - he pledged to end the extreme Soviet-style secrecy of the Bush years, and to conduct business in the open (only to go and let the healthcare companies themselves write the Obamacare legislation in sleazy secret meetings). And on each one of these issues, Obama gave liberals the finger and governed as a "centrist" (i.e. someone beholden to the Washington establishment rather than the voters). The left - even here in MA - is understandably dejected and dispirited. You can only tell your base to piss off so many times before they go and do just that.
AllenG| 1.20.10 @ 6:01PM
You know... one day you're going to get this sarcasm thing down so that you don't have to worry about the fact you keep forgetting your /sarc tag...
Pete| 1.20.10 @ 6:54PM
Must have been great to live in MA the last 40 years where the status quo was just fine. But seriously, thanks for the explanation. Who knew they wanted him to be more liberal and extreme and that's why they flopped this time? Fascinating.
bluecollarbytes| 1.20.10 @ 8:15PM
Huh, sounds like Bush/Cheney are responsible (through a psychedelic haze) ultimately for Brown having kicked Croakley's patootie. Far out man
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 7:11AM
That's a very odd take on what I wrote. Bush and Cheney are somehow responsible for Obama stiffing his base on every single issue - and you got that from my paragraph? Maybe you should read it again.
Randy| 1.21.10 @ 8:32AM
Thats exactly what I got from your paragraph. Obama has done well, Bush/Cheney were awful, The people of Mass. wanted change and were still hung up on Bush/Cheney era "status Quo"
Its was a fine example of circular logic.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:54AM
Jesus. Are you insane? "Obama has done well" - you got THAT from my post? The gist was that Obama more or less betrayed his base, so they are dispirited. It's not that complicated.
Randy| 1.21.10 @ 8:37AM
Your paragraph is pretty insulting to liberals, saying they are so stupid that since Coakley wasn't liberal enough, they voted IN THE MASSES for a conservative? over 1 million people voted for this man. That did not happen by accident. Your state is turning red my friend.
S.L. Toddard| 1.21.10 @ 9:56AM
The only thing insulting about any of this is your reading comprehension being an insult to the American school system. I do not think - nor did I assert -that because "Coakley wasn't liberal enough, they voted IN THE MASSES for a conservative". I certainly do not consider Scott Brown a "conservative". I wrote that "people in MA are generally upset with the status quo, Coakley represents the party in power and Scott Brown ran as an outsider - the candidate of "change" (sound familiar?). On top of that, liberals - after having been betrayed by Obama all year - are not exactly energized in MA".
I will simplify that for you: MOST PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY WITH HOW THINGS ARE GOING SO THEY VOTED AGAINST THE PARTY IN POWER. ALSO, DIE HARD LIBERALS ARE NOT HAPPY EITHER, SO THEY WERE NOT ENERGIZED BEHIND COAKLEY.
Got it?
m0j0| 1.21.10 @ 9:16PM
what exactly are the laws bush broke?where in the constitution does congress have the authority to force a citizen to buy anything to be a legal citizen enemy combatants out of uniform have none, zero, nada rights and can be executed on the spot without a trial how did the marxists manage to change socialism into progressive where is the authority for congress to nationalize any private property without payment pows are always held until the end of hostilities unless exchanged since any of our captured military or citizens are murdered there are no prisoners to exchange you are confused the soviet style is polosi and obama
Bear1909| 1.20.10 @ 7:03PM
The Boy Queen President in Name Only (BQ_PINO) is adrift and looking rather grey and washed out while Ms. Michelle seems to have used a horse tranquilizer gun to administer her botox.
They are toast. Someone mentioned that the BQ_PINO is still popular....ya wildly so with middle schoolers all over this great land.
Say goodnite, Barry.
thx1139| 1.20.10 @ 7:06PM
The comments by lurking liberal retards are themselves evidence of the article's headline. S.L. Toddard is a good example of the far-left Obewammi supporters who still fantasize about a socialist takeover. "Extreme Soviet Style Secrecy of the Bush years.." indeed. Yes, the healthcare companies DID get to write much of the Obamacare legislation in 'sleazy secret meetings'. But what's new about that? The Obama-Pelosi-Reid politburo has made 'sleazy secret meetings' their stock in trade since long before the inauguration.
If any of their known real intentions had been even partially discussed by the so-called 'news' media, Obwammi would have been destroyed by a landslide.
It is good that the left - even there in Commie Massachuzetts - is dispirited and dejected. It will get more so.
Just wait until November, loonie lefties.
thx1139| 1.20.10 @ 7:09PM
Actually, retards on the left, the main problem for the dumcrats is simple: It's just *who they are*.
Bye-bye Barry
ggoblue| 1.20.10 @ 7:12PM
the difference this year is simple...health care touches everyones lives, and the uninvolved masses started to pay attention. now the whole country is picking up on what we conservatives have always known...the democrats are extremist kooks. gone are the days when people will say about politicians "they're all the same".
Pingback| 1.20.10 @ 10:45PM
(I need to finish my mother’s birthday present) Tab Dump « Politicaljunkie Mom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Yosemeti Sam| 1.21.10 @ 1:00AM
Ah - Liberal Democrats with their LMSM
advisory spurs in their sides.
Head 'em up, move 'em out, head 'em up, move 'em out, head 'em up, move 'em out - rawhide!
Watch out though!
For the " Brownian motion".
Stampede!
LOL.
mickeymat| 1.21.10 @ 6:47AM
Regarding Barry's poll numbers-I can't shake the intuitive feeling that responders fear giving him negative ratings due to the pervasive accusations of racism that permeate society. Some of us could care less and answer honestly especially those among us who believe in a society not based on race. But many have gotten the message that to disagree with Obama is an indication of racism. Somehow I believe this is a factor in respondent's opinions. They give him higher ratings as a result.
Randy| 1.21.10 @ 8:44AM
Have you ever been surveyed? You dont get a call from a social scientist or even a student. You get a call from someone making minimum wage from an urban city. If you give an answer they do not like, you can often here their dissatisfaction.
Now who is going to tell this person you dont like our African American President? I would, but many would try to avoid confrontation.
Teflon93 | 1.21.10 @ 7:29AM
There's an easy way to test liberal popularity: run a Democrat in a tossup district as an unabashed liberal. Put "Liberal" in big letters right underneath their name on the lawn darts. Have them embrace socialism and say so. Do they want to increase your taxes? Hell yeah! Do they want to redistribute the wealth? Hell yeah! And so on.
They won't do it. Never do.
There's a reason Democrats have to steal elections, you know.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.21.10 @ 10:19AM
Teflon,
I heartily agree with you, and I am really pithed off about the communists, (pardon the shorthand), sneaking a five % to ten % "edge" in every election by stuffing ballot boxes.
We truly do need to root out this quiet sly abomination.
Again, as most of you know, I am sickened and dismayed by the ballot-box stuffing that the Democrats brazenly brag about stuffing illegally.
(I shall shamelessly digress here for a moment. I just finished reading Martin Luther King’s “letter from the Birmingham Jail to fellow ministers. http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html )
I seriously commend it to each man and woman of good will here.
The reason, I bring it up, is his discussion of “direct action” and “outside agitation”…and the willingness to take the punishment …for civil disobedience…non-violently. If our honest individual votes no longer mean anything, then I for one…(of millions)…cannot accept election outcomes, nor the “legislators” who pass subsequent laws and regulations illegitimately.
Bottom line…every single vote in every single election…is PRECIOUS!
I shall not abide one vote thrown at the feet of swine! I shall not! If the greatest Republic the world has ever known cannot manage to have free and accurate elections…then we have no representative Republic at all….and I shall bear no further allegiance.
I, for one, am sorta’ proud that the Americans with dark skins voted for Mr. Obama. If I had a dark skin, and didn’t know any better, I would have voted for him too. Sadly, Mr. Obama has proven he is only “red”. (a communist, pardon the shorthand).
...and he has proven that he despises what Americans have built, therefore our votes are only a pain in the butt to him and his congress critters.
Doug| 1.21.10 @ 1:43PM
Obamacare was the last straw! The populace has been very complacent about the growth of government for quite some time. This time they realized it was going to reduce their "standard of living" through fees, taxes, and whatever else could be piled on. THAT is what the American Public finally realized.
ptomsarge| 1.21.10 @ 3:43PM
The Brown election is a repudiation of Obama by the independents who voted for him based on his serial misrepresentations as a candidate and their own naivete about his history and philosophy. They realize they made a colossal mistake and have taken back that vote with a vengeance. Unfortunately we are stuck with their mistake for three more years of mismanagement and foolish choices.
Chisco| 1.21.10 @ 4:18PM
Everyone keeps saying that obama is "popular" with the people, but they oppose his ideas...
I have to disagree with half of that -- I disagree with obama's policies and ideas, but I also don't like him either -- for a whole host of reasons, NONE of which have to do with his race(s)!!
I don't like obama because I whenever I look at him I see an arrogant, unqualified, inexperienced, radical "community organizer" who has spent his entire life LYING about who, what, where, when, and why he's EVER done anything, with whom, etc...
All that CAN BE PROVEN about him is that he is a LIAR who will tell any lie necessary to accomplish the destruction of this country, and I will "disagree" with ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO GET INTO OFFICE AND DO THAT!!!!
JACK kINCH(1UNCLE)| 1.21.10 @ 7:25PM
Hope is a poor reason to vote someone to the presidency. He had no qualifications. Been on welfare all his known life. And probably not legal. THINK.
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 9:12PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Why They Can't Explain the … Tools links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
WAKE UP| 1.21.10 @ 10:26PM
In one sentence: America is beginning to catch on that it has elected someone who is UN-American.
COME ON AMERICA| 1.23.10 @ 8:02PM
It is absolutely maddening to see how ridiculous the American Right and the American voters are behaving. When it comes down to it, Obama is trying to better a country that has been in decline since the Mcarthy era. The USA has been a paranoid, disillusioned, greedy, warmongering, nation ever since the Korean War. Take some history classes and then try and understand why: 1) IT ISNT OK THAT 47 MILLION AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE, 2) THAT AMERICA IS THE LARGEST POLLUTER IN THE WORLD AND DOES NOTHING ABOUT IT, 3) THAT INVADING OTHER COUNTRIES DOES NOT DISSOLVE THE TERRORIST THREAT, 4) THAT EVANGELICAL/AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY IS PURE FANATICISM, 5)THAT SPENDING MORE THAN 25% OF EVERY TAX DOLLAR ON MILITARY POWER IS ABSURD, NOT TO MENTION ECONOMICALLY UNSUSTAINABLE.
Grow Up America....
Jolly One| 1.24.10 @ 2:38AM
That you, Rahm? Axelrod? Doing a little astroturfing today? LMAO!